Carolan v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 8) [2017] NSWSC 1757

Carolan v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 8) [2017] NSWSC 1757

The plaintiff failed on the discrete application for permanent injunctive relief, and the asserted delay by the defendants in removing defamatory material did not justify departure from the usual costs order because the court had already accepted that the defendants' steps were adequately explained and reasonable. However, the defendants' late consent to appropriate costs orders made the plaintiff's preparation for the scheduled costs argument wasted, so the defendants were required to pay those preparation costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Costs in Defamation Proceedings / Determined on the Papers After Refusal of the Plaintiff's Application for Permanent Injunctive Relief
Outcome
Costs orders made partly in favour of the defendants and partly in favour of the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['costs Follow the Event' 'permanent Injunctive Relief' 'removal of Defamatory Matter From the Internet' 'offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['costs Follow the Event' 'permanent Injunctive Relief' 'removal of Defamatory Matter From the Internet' 'offer of Compromise' 'indemnity Costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Costs in Defamation Proceedings / Determined on the Papers After Refusal of the Plaintiff's Application for Permanent Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants should receive their costs of the hearing on the plaintiff's unsuccessful application for permanent injunctive relief." 'Whether alleged inordinate delay by the defendants in removing defamatory matter from the internet warranted departure from the usual costs order.' "Whether the defendants should pay the plaintiff's costs of preparation for a costs argument that became unnecessary after their late consent to appropriate costs orders."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed on the discrete application for permanent injunctive relief, and the asserted delay by the defendants in removing defamatory material did not justify departure from the usual costs order because the court had already accepted that the defendants' steps were adequately explained and reasonable. However, the defendants' late consent to appropriate costs orders made the plaintiff's preparation for the scheduled costs argument wasted, so the defendants were required to pay those preparation costs.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made partly in favour of the defendants and partly in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ["Subject to order (2), the plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the hearing on 2 September 2016." "The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs of preparation for the costs argument scheduled to be heard that day."]